Posted on 03/04/2005 11:27:53 AM PST by advance_copy
Under intense global pressure, the United States on Friday dropped its demand to amend a declaration reaffirming the U.N. blueprint to achieve equality for women, saying it was satisfied the document did not guarantee the right to abortion.
U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey said the United States would join other nations in approving the declaration endorsing the 150-page platform for action adopted at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing.
The proposed U.S. amendment would have reaffirmed the Beijing platform and a declaration adopted with it - but only "while reaffirming that they do not create any new international human rights, and that they do not include the right to abortion."
But the United States found itself virtually alone, with nations from Africa, Europe, Latin America and Asia all opposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
UNITED NATIONS, March 3, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In late breaking news today, LifeSiteNews.com has learned that the proposed US amendment, to clarify that the UN Beijing +5 Document and Platform for Action do not propose abortion rights, did not achieve consensus at an informal negotiation meeting this afternoon. LifeSiteNews.com sources on the scene have revealed that the measure represents a pro-life victory nonetheless as the vast majority of countries reiterated during the meeting that they did not consider the UN documents to confer new rights to abortion, and thus the amendment was unnecessary.
The bickering over the proposal also exposed the fact that Canada and several European nations would like to interpret the documents as conferring an international right to abortion. However, that interpretation was soundly rejected by the majority of nations. In fact, according to LifeSiteNews.com sources, Ms. Kyung-wha Kang of Korea, the Chairperson of the current 49th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, confirmed during the meeting that the Beijing documents created no new international rights nor the right to abortion.
U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey, head of the U.S. delegation, said yesterday, “It is clear that there was no intent on the part of States supporting the Beijing documents to create new rights . . . including the right to abortion.”
She added, “The United States recognizes the International Conference on Population and Development principle that abortion policies are a matter of national sovereignty. And, we are pleased that so many other governments have indicated their agreement with this position, and we anticipate that we can now focus clearly on addressing the many urgent needs of women around the world.”
Why is LifeSiteNews.com sugarcoating the UN's incremental effort to establish abortion as a "right"?
(CNSNews.com) - Notwithstanding inaccurate reports in major media, the U.S. delegation at the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting in New York has not dropped a contentious proposal to make clear that a key document on women's equality does not uphold a "right" to abortion.
Spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the U.N., Richard Grenell, told CNSNews.com mid-afternoon Thursday New York time that the reports were wrong.
"The situation is we have not decided what to do, and we are in discussions at the moment," Grenell said.
The U.S. delegation earlier called for the draft of a brief statement reaffirming a platform of action agreed upon at a major women's conference in Beijing in 1995 to include a phrase clarifying that the platform did not include any new rights and did not include "the right to abortion."
The proposal brought a storm of protest from governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and by Wednesday evening, wire services and then other media - including the New York Times - reported that the U.S. had relented.
At a briefing Thursday, the U.S. delegation head, Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey, was asked whether the U.S. was indeed dropping its proposal for the anti-abortion wording to be included in the statement.
"She was specifically asked, and she responded: 'We are waiting for instructions from Washington, but at the moment, no,' " Grenell said.
A lobbying battle is underway Thursday, with pro-life groups from around the world sending in messages of support for the U.S. stance, while NGOs opposed to the pro-life language are also making their views known through petitions.
Austin Ruse, president of the pro-life Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute in New York, sent out an appeal late Wednesday, and almost 800 responses had come in by Thursday morning.
Ruse urged organizations around the world to continue making their voices heard as negotiations continued at the U.N. through the day.
Grenell said the mission was getting "a lot of feedback from both sides."
Media mix-up
On Wednesday afternoon, Reuters began moving a story saying that the U.S. "plans to drop its insistence that a U.N. document on women's equality make clear that abortion is not a fundamental right."
It cited unnamed "negotiators" as saying the White House "would drop the demand."
The Associated Press also sent out a report around the same time but in its case said that "there were indications that the Bush administration was reviewing its position."
Both Reuters and AP reports were widely used around the world overnight and into Thursday.
The New York Times carried its own report Wednesday evening, headlined "U.S. Drops Anti-Abortion Demand at Forum."
The report stated that: "On Wednesday, the leader of the United States delegation agreed to drop the requirement."
A longer version of the NYT report appeared in the International Herald Tribune under the headline "At U.N. forum, U.S. drops its demand for a statement on abortion."
In the Reuters report, spokesman Grenell was quoted as saying: "We are hearing from many delegations that they agree with us and they advise us that the amendment is therefore not needed."
But the NYT report in the Herald Tribune removed the quotes, saying: "Richard Grenell, the spokesman for the American mission, said the United States felt that it had accomplished its original objective in raising the issue and that no amendment would now be necessary."
By Thursday afternoon, the NYT story was still available on its website.
NGOs opposed to the Bush administration's pro-life actions have argued in New York that the insistence on including the pro-life phrase threatens to "undermine" the important documents that came out of the Beijing conference and subsequent ones.
Pro-lifers say the U.S. amendment is crucial because campaign groups have been using the Beijing platform in a bid to push the liberalization of abortion laws around the world.
"The Left has used the Beijing outcome documents - which are technically 'non-binding agreements' - to promote abortion around the world," Janice Crouse, an NGO delegate representing Concerned Women for America at the CSW meeting, wrote in an online opinion piece Thursday.
"Radical feminists have blatantly distorted the intent and reality of the Beijing [platform] to say that a woman's 'right' to an abortion is a basic human right."
Crouse, a former Bush presidential speech writer, said the groups were using the administration's stance as a way to stir up anger against the U.S.
"The goal is to use opposition to the United States' pro-life position in order to legalize abortion around the world," she said. "Not only is this goal abhorrent, it is even more despicable (if possible) because it denies freedom of choice."
If you noticed, the report is from yesterday. I'm guessing that the development in your article happened today. So it isn't a "sugarcoating."
If speech control is not lifted before the next election cycle, there should be a massive public disobedience effort in which people publish and print and broadcast political speech irrespective of the law, and put pressure on all pols to eliminate all censorship. Enough is enough.
oops. sorry, posted on wrong thread. never mind...
I though you said the article you posted was an "update" to the one from 1/2 hour ago. Nonetheless, the timing is irrelevant. The Department of State started going squishy on this with the UN yesterday and LifeSiteNews.com came out sugarcoating.
Uh, it isn't sugarcoating when you have AP, Reuters, et al reporting one thing, and GOPUSA and Lifesitenews reporting another. Someone should call the State Dept. and find out what's really going on.
Re: “…the UN Beijing +5 Document and Platform for Action do not propose abortion rights.”
And: “…exposed the fact that Canada and several European nations would like to interpret the documents as conferring an international right to abortion.”
Also: “… the Chairperson of the current 49th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, confirmed during the meeting that the Beijing documents created no new international rights nor the right to abortion.”
Let’s not forget: “… Ellen Sauerbrey, head of the U.S. delegation, said yesterday, “It is clear that there was no intent on the part of States supporting the Beijing documents to create new rights . . . including the right to abortion.””
And finally: “… “The United States recognizes the International Conference on Population and Development principle that abortion policies are a matter of national sovereignty.”
I guess with all these assurances we can all sleep soundly. //sarcasm off// Trouble is the administration of each country can change including ours. Does anyone doubt the Hillary administration will interpret this meeting differently?
Folks this is how this stuff works. They get it passed with all sorts of vague language that will be interpreted any way the UN staff wants or any foreign affairs department of any given administration desires. Even with clear language they will twist the meaning into something else. Consider the fine job our Supreme Court is doing with our Constitution. (Sorry the sarcasm button was accidentally left on).
This stuff is a one way street. They WILL define it as a right to an abortion unless feet are held to the fire and they will force it down Ireland’s, Portugal’s, Kenya’s et all throat. Money, aid, trade, loans will all be held in condition of compliance.
Just remember Virginia agreed to the Constitution on the grounds she could leave. That was fine when Virginia was the 800 lbs gorilla. She was betrayed when she was weak. Get out of the UN while we can.
Has anyone seen Steve Harrigan's special reports on the ongoing scandal and sickness in the Congo? The UN is involved in baby rape as well as baby murder.
You make more money when the criminal is rich and you get paid to hide their crimes. However, since the Dems have the monopoly on that, Bush can forget it in finding love and shelter from gays, abortionists and what not.
Catching on to the flim-flam scheme, are you? Let's take a look at the Republican party's fearless actions on behalf of the pro-life folks who voted for them for decades. First there was Nixon, whose appointee Blackmun authored Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in the first place.
In the 32 years since then, we've not seen much action apart form the Hyde amendment, which is in constant danger of being watered down. This, along with a few anti-abortion executive orders came about back in the Reagan era (who was unable to accomplish much despite his own genuine pro-life position, thanks to the Dem-controlled congress plus the liberal wing of the party). Reagan also made the mistake of appointing O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. After Reagan, George Bush I worked quietly to make sure pro-lifers would have no real control over the party. This was the era of Haley Barbour's "big tent" policy (pro-abortion types weren't to be opposed from within the party ranks, but pro-lifers could be attacked by liberals). Even those who support partial-birth abortion were given party support.
During the reign of Clinton, the Republicans in congress went along with the FACE act, which effectively shut down the anti-abortion protest movement (one of the largest protest movements in US history). Despite gaining control of Congress a decade ago, the Republicans have been experts at talking about how pro-life they are while allowing the courts to do the dirtywork of advancing abortion and shutting up pro-lifers. They also granted MFN status to China, a thug regime which practices forced abortions.
Then comes Bush II, who throws a bone to the pro-lifers who voted for him by rescinding Clinton's reversal of Reagan's anti-abortion Executive orders. He then signs a Republican passed partial-birth abortion law after a Supreme Court ruling upholding such abortions which is - surpise! - struck down by Federal judges. Flim-flam at its very finest.
Next, W takes time off his own busy schedule to campaign in the PA primary for the notorious abortion-promoter Arlen Specter and even stongarms the pro-lifer Santorum to join in defeating the pro-life Pat Toomey. When Specter reveals his true colors by announcing his plan to make sure there are no pro-life judges, Bush and the Republicans reward him with the chairmainship of the Senate Judiciary (after a phony promise by Specter to behave himself). Like the scorpion in the children's tale, Specter has reverted to natural form and appointed Marxists as committee attorneys. He will make good on his promise to the feminazis.
Let's also not forget that W, Rove, Frist and the gang arranged for the appointment of pro-aborts to head the RNC. They'll no doubt work hard to undermine any pro-life candidates in the manner of their spiritual leader - the Scottish senator from PA. In 2008, we can count on a pro-abortion candidate form the Repubicans, and the final purging of the anti-abortion plank from the party platform. These folks are flim-flam artists that make Bill Clinton look like a rank amateur. Meanwhile, the slaughter continues unabated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.